»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
“redefining the Democratic Party”
| The Alley |
|
“redefining the Democratic Party” |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“Kerry was a flawed candidate, but he was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was the party's liberal base, which would have refused to nominate anyone who proposed redefining the Democratic Party in the way the ADA did in 1947. The challenge for Democrats today is not to find a different kind of presidential candidate. It is to transform the party at its grassroots so that a different kind of presidential candidate can emerge. That means abandoning the unity-at-all-costs ethos that governed American liberalism in 2004. And it requires a sustained battle to wrest the Democratic Party from the heirs of Henry Wallace. In the party today, two such heirs loom largest: Michael Moore and MoveOn. … Moore is the most prominent soft in the United States today. Most Democrats agree with him about the Iraq war, about Ashcroft, and about Bush. What they do not recognize, or do not acknowledge, is that Moore does not oppose Bush's policies because he thinks they fail to effectively address the terrorist threat; he does not believe there is a terrorist threat. For Moore, terrorism is an opiate whipped up by corporate bosses. In Dude, Where's My Country?, he says it plainly: "There is no terrorist threat." And he wonders, "Why has our government gone to such absurd lengths to convince us our lives are in danger?" Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right….” http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=whKP5U%2BbbaxbirV9FQhQuh%3D%3D |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
“Kerry was a flawed candidate, but he was not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem was the party's liberal base, which would have refused to nominate anyone who proposed redefining the Democratic Party in the way the ADA did in 1947" Redefining is for centrist democrats, like those that formed the ADA in 1947...but remember, the politics of that age was not run by todays, extremist majority, who are hell bent on destroying everything the left has legislated in the past that has to do with social issues, deplomacy and the environment...Clinton tried to be a centrist, but kept dropping the ball on things that cried for definition, like health care reforms, that he proposed early in his first administration, and then dropped it like a hot potato, never to be picked up again... A real democrat would have kept screaming.. My position on redefining is very different than what is normally thought of as its definition... I believe that you are stating that the left should have given in and lied about their agendas in order to gain office, like the other side did? perhaps I am wrong... "That means abandoning the unity-at-all-costs ethos that governed American liberalism in 2004. And it requires a sustained battle to wrest the Democratic Party from the heirs of Henry Wallace. In the party today, two such heirs loom largest: Michael Moore and MoveOn." First of all, I do not consider the likes of Moore and Move On as heirs or representitives of the the democratic party, they are radicals, out of control by mainstream democrats, as well they should be...They are revolutionaries, but they really scream no cause...I think that they should just shut up because they are hurting the democratic party. But I won't say that of course, being a lefty means that you let everyone speak and don't try to talk over them like O'reily and Coulter. "Most Democrats agree with him (Moore)about the Iraq war, about Ashcroft, and about Bush." I do agree with him on those three issues, I guess, well anyway in spirit...But they have stooped to the same thing that the right has in order to get their points across...and that is the smoke and mirrors way that they portray themselves as right and the other side wrong...through lies and distortions....maybe they are fighting fire with fire, but that does not excuse their behavior in my mind. ""There is no terrorist threat." And he (Moore) wonders, "Why has our government gone to such absurd lengths to convince us our lives are in danger?" What an idiot! Our lives are most certainly in danger, and that danger is caused directly by our nations, and other nations policies.. Another idiotic statement from a person in Moores parralell universe is "They hate us for our freedom" "Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right….” Another idiotic statement...but this one has a few grains of truth in it...after all it is the extremly rich that run the huge corporations, that make uncountable, mostly untraceable profits from this or any war...for instance, Halliburton. Thank you for the thread, H-Y, I learn something I didn't know each time I slip into the ally...I enjoy the potential for growth im here, as well as the lively banter.... __________ice ><> [This message has been edited by ice (12-11-2004 07:57 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I do not consider the likes of Moore and Move On as heirs or representitives of the the democratic party, You may not, ice, and I agree but it seems moveon has their own theory, as evidenced in this news article yestedrday.... "MoveOn.org Makes Push for Washington 'Outsider' to Head DNC By Bobby Eberle Talon News December 10, 2004 In a message to supporters, the liberal activist group MoveOn.org urged its members to contact their state party leaders and ask them to "support a chair who will represent all of us outside of the Washington beltway." In addressing who will lead the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org notes that the answer "may come as soon as this weekend, when the state Democratic Party leaders gather to discuss who should chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the next four years." "The election for chair is rarely competitive," MoveOn.org states in their message. "But this year, with the race wide open, we have the chance to elect a leader who will reconnect the Democratic Party with its constituents -- us." MoveOn.org says that for years, the Democratic Party has been led by "elite Washington insiders" who are "closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base." "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers," MoveOn.org says. "In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive." MoveOn.org says in the message, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe both the Republican and Democratic parties myself have become far too corporately-influenced. Though it is true I voted for the Democratic ticket last month, because I saw Bush exactly THAT bad to the point I believed the sufficient move was to go Kerry, I do not consider myself a Democrat and at this rate may never will. I lean far more to the ethics of the Green Party. In my experience with activism, I've noticed there to be three main types of progressive groups; the Michael Moore progressives, the more mainstream version, and then the LaRouche/ progressives, who are far more extreme and often like to use tough words like "fascist" in their dialogue, and then the kind of middle ground in-between where all the storming and norming rests. Ralph Nader made many sensible arguments over the past few months regarding Democrats as "crypto-Republicans" in many senses, though where we disagree is how we go about solving this two-party duopoly, where he believes the solution is to end the Democratic Party, where I believe instead it should be fixed from the inside, not imploded from the outside. I wish the Democrats could look about and beyond and try and find the real storytellers out there, those who do know the true democratic, progressive values and can do what the Republicans do best and make concise, accessible messages of just what their values system is. And if they truly don't believe they have one, they should adopt those of the Green Party. Non-violence. Economic justice. Ecological wisdom. Sustainability. Celebration of diversity. And so forth. I believe a majority of Americans would already agree with many of the Green Party's ideas. They're just simply below the radar, all because of this two-party system, and the way we decide our candidates on Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Kerry won because of the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. It was inevitable whoever won Iowa would win the Democratic nomination because of the Anybody But Bush bandwagon. And because Kerry took advantage of his fine debate abilities and town-hall speech persona, he happened to have come up on top in Iowa, upsetting Dean. Had Kucinich come on top in Iowa, he would have been Bush's challenger. Had Dean come up on top in Iowa, he would have been Bush's challenger. Plainly, the Democrats didn't give Kerry the nomination, Iowa did. We need to reform this democratic process so that all states are represented in the primaries. What I believe has to be done between now and 2008 is we have to get that ITC ballot enforced, a reformed sort of ballot where you can select your candidates from favorite to second favorite to third favorite, so in the event where a candidate does not receive a majority of the vote, the winner is determined based on secondary popularity. Not only that, but under this ballot system, third party candidates are also represented. Secondly, both the Democrats and third parties simply need to work hard. Work, work, work. Don't slack off until the last minute, and see to it 2008 isn't a familiar sight to 2004. 95% of the Democratic delegates are against the war in Iraq, a majority against the Patriot Act and the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the privatization of Social security, etc. That should really mean something. Unfortunately, those in control of the DNC don't seem to have the passion a majority of the party does. MoveOn gets a lot of credit for empowering a lot of grassroots organizing and community-building, and I believe they have done many great things, though I do indeed find it selfish or arrogant how they said, "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." without letting us know of this "outsider" they see promise in. Shouldn't we have the right to know. After all, they believe it is OUR party, so should we trust putting it in the hands of someone who not even the most devoted of the organization are acquainted with? Both Ford and Balladeer are right they shouldn't boldly address themselves as the "heirs" of the DNC. That just doesn't live up to the nature of even the party's name. Or...oh yeah...if this party will continue to be corporately influenced...then in fact it may actually be completely true... All I believe is this Democratic Party just isn't currently living up to its name; not being very "democratic". It's time they listen up for the widespread demands of a living wage, which 1/3 of Americans don't have. It's time a basic health care plan is adopted. It's time, frankly, they return to their roots, unless they were uprooted long ago. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Baladeer The statement by moveon is frightning.... My opinion is that extremists, with agendas such as theirs, will cause the ruination of the democratic party. Although, like behavior of those in the whitehouse right now, has seemed not to hurt them. Another frightening thing might happen, they may succede because of the availability of money to them. They have been empowered by the campaign finance reform laws of 2002, not only them, but all 527 groups have cashed in because of the new laws..which include, of course the republican, deceptive advertisemet groups, like the Swift boaters and Progress for America... but if that happens, it will not happen overnight...Look how long it took for the extreme right to come to power....The strength that those in the whitehouse have now began gathering long ago in the McCarthy era, ( whose witch hunters remind me of the 527's) who passed the baton to Goldwater, Nixon, Ollie North/Ronald Teflon, oops I mean Reagon... on and on until the present day revival, and they never dropped the stick. __________ice/ford ><> |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Noah "I believe both the Republican and Democratic parties myself have become far too corporately-influenced." Both parties have always been highly influenced by corporations. An old gangster once said "I rob banks because that's where the money is" Corporations rob influence from voter banks, beacuse that's where their money is, picking voters pockets to line their own, by donating to candidates that will empower them with more cash. A kind of mobster insurance policy...Not only have corporations always done this, but in the present time, so do very rich individuals. "I wish the Democrats could look about and beyond and try and find the real storytellers out there, those who do know the true democratic, progressive values and can do what the Republicans do best and make concise, accessible messages of just what their values system is." The story of the progressive message was told in the election, although it was stifled from within and without the democratic party. Especially by the pounding that Rove and his cohorts did with the flip-flop/wrong time, wrong war type advertisements. Remember that the agenda of many Kerry supporters was much more radical than the candidate expressed himself... Many of his supporters supported him only because he was chosen by the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, as you mention in your post. ("Plainly, the Democrats didn't give Kerry the nomination, Iowa did." "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." without letting us know of this "outsider" they see promise in." I agree, this is frightening...but If you ask people on the street if they ever heard of George W before 2000, if they answered honestly, would say no. The neocons had to pick someone who was little known, and through, and by the craft of advertisement (like is done with mediocre pop singers) they pasted the unknown face of a mock-hero on the raised banner of their extremist agendas, and the procrded to wave it fervetly until half the masses recognized the face as an American icon. "It's time, frankly, they return to their roots, unless they were uprooted long ago." I hope at least a sprig of the democratic tree is still alive, and that its roots will revive the parties original intent. Old trees have lived for centuries after being blasted by the wind. What the dems have going for them is a chaotic format, that they can change in a heartbeat, and transcend into new concepts and thought..This allows the true progressive/liberal/democrat the freedom from fear that their whole agenda will fall apart if something goes wrong with their plans....Conservatives cannot do this as they spend all of their time rehashing what they already know, and they are afraid of being proven wrong,.Thus they fight hard, even when faced by proof that what they say is wrong...Look at Bushes view on scientific information in general and in particular, his persistence in ignoring the facts of global warming. Always good to read your posts, Noah....They are filled with youthful exuberance and faith, a quite different type of faith than is expressed by our congress and president at this time Carry on..... Manaste________ice/ford |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why is the statement by Moveon frightening? In another thread, Moore and Moveon were described as revolutionary. That's absurd. The Weathermen were revolutionaries, Moore and Moveon don't blow things up. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Brad "Why is the statement by Moveon frightening?" Because it sounds to me like a statement of ownership....do we really want another puppet president in the Whitehouse who is just a figurehead of the party? We already have one of those owned presidents now, who has never yet rejected a legislative proposal from his owners, who never once vetoed anything sent to him by the pullers of his strings. The neocons took a long time to pull off what moveon is trying to do, and look at the mess we are in... It is a dangerous situation for the party and the country...that's why it is "frightening" * "In another thread, Moore and Moveon were described as revolutionary. That's absurd. The Weathermen were revolutionaries, Moore and Moveon don't blow things up." Yes, I agree, they are revolutionary in a political/legal sense and they do have a point, as did the weathermen, as did Che and Fidel...who all blew things up because their grievances were not addressed before they became violent... Moveon and Moore have unadressed grievances also,and both are using psychological bombs to gain the attention of would be supporters and their opponents, just like the neocon groups do. As I stated before, my feelings are that these extremists groups, on both sides only exist because of the campaign finance rule changes of 2000. I do not believe that there should not be a law banning 527 groups altogether, but I believe that the FCC should push for a law that makes lying by those groups a punishable offence. (As well, a punishable offence to distort the truth, and lie in any political ad.) And no more theatrics that mesmerize the brain and make the viewer like a horse that dumbly approves the grass. ___________ice ><> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In that case, Ice, you would wave goodbye to Michael Moore, who self-admittedly distorted the truth and lied in his movie. When questioned about it, he said, "So sue me". So easy to take aim at those against your beliefs and ignore the others, isn't it? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Moveon means you. You can argue that its not you, but that's what they meant. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I personally despised those tactics on both sides, from Soros and Moore to VVFT. Moveon does ring familiar, since Soros fully funded it, and in effect owns it. So Soros would be the one person deciding who gets to be the DNC Candidate. Reminds me of the good old days of legal organized crime (i.e. labor union bosses) deciding who would and would not run. As for them, I still get riled thinking how pompous it is for labor unions to throw financial backing and support for candidates who may not be the same person the labor union member would vote for office. The unions figure that if you're part of their syndicate, then you are with them 100%. Where they lead, you better well follow, or suffer the same consequences as Scabs. Speaking of which, Bring Back the Scabs! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tafel200412150811.asp “Polls show that the president received anywhere from 1.5 million to 2 million gay votes, up from 1 million votes in 2000 and double the number of gay votes for Bob Dole in 1996. This dramatic increase comes despite the fact that no gay organization endorsed him, no gay journalist editorialized on his behalf, and no gay leader supported him.” You have to admit, that’s at least a surprise if not a concern. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why should it be surprising that you can be gay and conservative? But when did Soros become a bad guy? He's long been a supporter of 'the Open Society'. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, Because Bush had no open support in the gay community, quite the opposite, and his position on an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage. P.S. “If the moralizing Left wants to be taken seriously, it is going have to become serious about its own moral issues, since that is the professed currency of contemporary liberalism. Otherwise, the spiritual leaders who lecture us all on social justice, poverty, and truth will remain the money-speculator George Soros, the Reverend Jesse Jackson of dubious personal and professional ethics, and the mythographer Michael Moore. And we all know where that leads…” http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412170839.asp ‘Moore told a Cambridge reporter that all America is known for around the world is “bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In England, he told a reporter that Americans were possibly “the dumbest people on the face of the planet.” He shows his respect for our men and women in uniform by describing those killing our military people as “Iraqi Minutemen and freedom fighters.”’ http://www.bushcountry.org/news/columnists/barb-stock/c_070704_bstock_michae l_moore_propaganda.htm [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-17-2004 09:09 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Since when did being gay mean you're not allowed to vote for who you want? At any rate, if we assume 10% of the population is gay, it's still a rather small number, don't you think? You know what's really, well, vacuous is that you and the NR crowd still think innuendo and appeals to fear can actually substitute for a substantive answer. Why is Soros a bad guy? (Are you really going to quote NR as a source that says currency speculation is wrong? They argue that insider trading should be made legal.) It would also help if people actually read what Moore said. He actually thinks that most Americans are very smart, but that they squander their energies on entertainment and sports. (See, Stupid White Men, "Idiot Nation". Do you have any idea what I could do with Ann Coulter if I wanted to?  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The issue is the weakness of the Democratic party and it’s inability to sustain itself to victory in elections. The original article spoke to this; the other articles, though from other perspectives, still speak to this issue. P.S. As to Ann Coulter, I’ve seen the name, that’s all I know of her. "Are you really going to quote NR as a source that says currency speculation is wrong?" Where in the article did they say that? "In England, he told a reporter that Americans were possibly “the dumbest people on the face of the planet.”' Are you saying this is a lie; Moore did not say it? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It didn't say that exactly, but it's the only thing I've heard that people criticize him for. He really does use his money to set up organizations to advance freedom and human rights. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, So neither I or the NR article said anything about currency speculation being right or wrong. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And we're right back to my first question, what is Soros villified for? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“As I listen to Soros speak, it makes you wonder if he really understands that there are [terrorists] who want to kill us.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205828/posts I knew nothing of Soros until the articles previously sited, but the quote above seems to make him akin to Moore. “To Soros fans like Strobe Talbott; Leslie Gelb, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations; and Mark Malloch Brown, the head of public affairs at the World Bank, Soros is the trailblazer they hope other businesspeople will follow, moving to fill the vacuum left by an overextended and inadequate government. But Soros's Macedonian expedition seems to be almost a parable about the pitfalls of that idea. Soros, unsurprisingly, is to a considerable degree a creature of his experience in the markets: idiosyncratic, intuitive, prone to quick judgments often based on scanty information, aggressive, manipulative, so self-reliant that he trusts no one's judgment but his own -- a profile, in sum, hardly suggestive of a diplomat. And, unlike the governmental bodies he has long disdained, Soros is a free agent, accountable to no one, subject to no checks and balances of countervailing opinion -- whose power is rooted, in the end, not in a consensus on the wisdom and sophistication of his world view but in his money.” http://www.hri.org/news/misc/misc-news/1995/95-03-20.misc Below is an interesting comment to and then reply by Soros and the rejoinder, which covers a number of contentions: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/medienkritik_vs.html |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
